"doesn't want to" is an awkward way to look at it. It's more of a catch-22. If you simplify 'welfare' to "If you're not above the poverty line, you're entitle

"doesn't want to" is an awkward way to look at it. It's more of a catch-22. If you simplify 'welfare' to "If you're not above the poverty line, you're entitled to assistance", then a job which does not bring you above the poverty line is zero-sum - you're still entitled to assistance. An example I see here quite often, is people who can only find part-time work, and still receive assistance. It's not unusual to find people in the position where they're working <20hrs/week, but do not want to work 20<n<30 hours a week because it'll interfere with their benefits. This is not the "don't want to work" trope - they'd take 40/hrs week in a heartbeat. But if 20hrs/week + benefits is better than 25hrs/week sans benefits, who would realistically take more work for less pay?